Search

Background: E7974, a synthetic analog of hemiasterlin, interacts with the tubulin molecule and overcomes resistance to other antitubulin drugs (taxanes and vinca alkaloids)., Methods: In a phase 1 study, E7974 was given intravenously over a 2- to 5-minute infusion on day 1 of every 21-day cycle. Adult patients with advanced refractory solid tumors who had adequate organ function and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 2 were eligible for this study. A modified Fibonacci schema was used. The maximal tolerated dose (MTD) was the dose where <2 of 6 patients developed a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT)., Results: Twenty-eight patients (19 men and 9 women; median age, 64 years) treated at different cohort dose levels (0.18 mg/m(2) , 0.27 mg/m(2) , 0.36 mg/m(2) , 0.45 mg/m(2) , and 0.56 mg/m(2) ) received a total of 66 courses of E7974. The MTD was established at 0.45 mg/m(2) , where 1 of 6 patients experienced DLT (grade 4 febrile neutropenia). Of the 17 refractory colon cancer patients with a median of 3 prior treatments, stable disease was seen in 7 patients (41%). There were no tumor responses. Median progression-free survival was 1.2 months, and median overall survival was 6.7 months. In pharmacokinetic analysis, E7974 was characterized by a fast and moderately large distribution (37.95-147.93 L), slow clearance (2.23-7.15 L/h), and moderate to slow elimination (time to half-life, 10.4-30.5 hours)., Conclusions: This study shows that E7974 once every 21-day cycle shows antitumor activity in patients with refractory solid tumors. The recommended phase 2 dose is 0.45 mg/m(2)., (Copyright © 2012 American Cancer Society.)

Background: The pancreatic tumor microenvironment is rich in receptors for platelet-derived growth factor (PDGFRs). Imatinib mesylate (IM) inhibits PDGFRs and decreases tumor interstitial fluid pressure, potentially improving drug access. These data and promising results in a phase 1 trial formed the rationale for a phase 2 trial combining IM and gemcitabine (GEM) in pancreatic cancer., Methods: Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy-naïve, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer; ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status ≤2; and adequate end-organ function. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included response rate, toxicity, and overall survival (OS). GEM was given at 1200 mg/m(2)/120 min on days 3 and 10. IM (400 mg) was taken orally on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12 of a 21-day cycle. Response was assessed every 3 cycles., Results: Forty-four patients from 7 centers were enrolled from October 2005 through July 2009. Median age was 62 years. The median number of cycles completed was 3 (range, 0-17). Common adverse effects included neutropenia, nausea, anemia, and fatigue. Half the patients required dose reductions. There were no complete responses to therapy. During treatment, 1 patient showed a partial response, 16 had stable disease, and 18 had progressive disease. The median PFS was 3.9 months (95% confidence interval, 2.1-5.1), the median OS was 6.3 months (95% confidence interval, 5.2-8.5), and the 1-year survival rate was 25.6% (95% confidence interval, 13.8-39.1)., Conclusion: IM in combination with GEM is tolerated in locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent pancreatic cancer, but does not show a statistically significant PFS or OS benefit over chemotherapy with GEM alone.

Purpose: Preclinical data shows improvements in response for the combination of imatinib mesylate (IM, Gleevec) and gemcitabine (GEM) therapy compared with GEM alone. Our goals were to determine the maximum tolerated dose of GEM and IM in combination, the pharmacokinetics of GEM in the absence and in the presence of IM, and IM pharmacokinetics in this combination., Patients and Methods: Patients with refractory malignancy, intact intestinal absorption, measurable/evaluable disease, adequate organ function, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS 0-2, and signed informed consent were eligible. Initially, treatment consisted of 600 mg/m2 of GEM (10 mg/m2/min) on days 1, 8, and 15, and 300 mg of IM daily every 28 days. Due to excessive toxicity, the schedule was altered to IM on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12, and GEM on days 3 and 10 every 21 days. Two final cohorts received IM on days 1 to 5, 8 to 12, and 15 to 19., Results: Fifty-four patients were treated. IM and GEM given daily at 500 to 600 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 produced frequent dose-limiting toxicities. With the modified scheduling, GEM given at 1,500 mg/m2/150 min was deliverable, along with 400 mg of IM, without dose-limiting toxicities. Three partial (laryngeal, renal, and mesothelioma) and two minor (renal and pancreatic) responses were noted at GEM doses of 450 to 1,500 mg/m2. Stable disease >24 weeks was seen in 17 patients. CA19-9 in 7 of 10 patients with pancreatic cancer was reduced by approximately 90%. IM did not significantly alter GEM pharmacokinetics., Conclusion: The addition of intermittently dosed IM to GEM at low to full dose was associated with broad antitumor activity and little increase in toxicity.

Purpose: Previous studies of cetuximab pharmacokinetics did not fully characterize its elimination phase. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of cetuximab given as a single dose followed by weekly fixed repeated dosing in patients with solid tumors., Experimental Design: Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with a single 2-hour infusion of cetuximab at doses of 50, 100, 250, 400, or 500 mg/m2 followed 3 weeks later by weekly 1-hour infusions of cetuximab at a fixed dose of 250 mg/m2. Extended pharmacokinetic sampling was collected through 504 hours after the first drug administration. Trough samples were obtained before each fixed weekly dose. Single and multidose pharmacokinetic variables were correlated with clinical outcomes., Results: Forty patients were enrolled. Pharmacokinetic analysis confirmed previous reports of nonlinear pharmacokinetics for cetuximab. Modeling studies predicted a 90% saturation of clearance at a dose of 260 mg/m2. Analyses of weekly trough concentrations indicated a slight accumulation of drug concentrations following repeated weekly dosing. Correlative studies indicated a significant association between cetuximab clearance and both body surface area (P=0.002) and weight (P=0.002). The occurrence of rash was significantly associated with disease stability (P<0.002) but not with cetuximab pharmacokinetic variables., Conclusions: Pharmacokinetic results support using body surface area or weight in calculating individual cetuximab doses. A weekly dose of 250 mg/m2 is predicted to nearly fully saturate cetuximab clearance and, by inference, epidermal growth factor receptors. The association between rash and disease stability supports further prospective studies of this relationship.

Purpose: Modest toxicity and possibly enhanced activity makes continuous-infusion fluorouracil (FU) an attractive alternative to FU plus leucovorin (FU/LV) for the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer. Intergroup trial 0153 (Southwest Oncology Group trial 9415) was developed to compare the efficacy of continuous-infusion FU (CIFU) plus levamisole to FU/LV plus levamisole in the adjuvant treatment of high-risk Dukes' B2 and C1 or C2 colon cancer., Patients and Methods: After surgery, patients were randomly assigned to CIFU 250 mg/m(2)/d for 56 days every 9 weeks for three cycles or FU 425 mg/m(2) and LV 20 mg/m(2) daily for 5 days every 28 to 35 days for six cycles. All patients received levamisole 50 mg tid for 3 days every other week. The primary end point was overall survival (OS)., Results: The study closed in December 1999 after an interim analysis demonstrated little likelihood of CIFU showing superiority to FU/LV within the stipulated hazard ratio. A total of 1,135 patients were registered. At least one grade 4 toxicity occurred in 39% of patients receiving FU/LV and 5% of patients receiving CIFU. However, almost twice as many patients receiving CIFU discontinued therapy early compared with those receiving FU/LV. The 5-year OS is 70% (95% CI, 66% to 74%) for FU/LV and 69% (95% CI, 64% to 73%) for CIFU. The corresponding 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) is 61% (95% CI, 56% to 65%) and 63% (95% CI, 59% to 68%), respectively. For all patients, 5-year OS is 83%, 74%, and 55%; 5-year DFS is 78%, 67%, and 47% for N0, N1, and N2-3, respectively., Conclusion: CIFU had less severe toxicity but did not improve DFS or OS in comparison with bolus FU/LV.

Purpose: To review and assign attribution for the causes of early deaths on two National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative group studies involving irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (IFL)., Patients and Methods: The inpatient, outpatient, and research records of patients treated on Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol C89803 and on North Center Cancer Treatment Group protocol N9741 were reviewed by a panel of five medical oncologists not directly involved with either study. Each death was categorized as treatment-induced, treatment-exacerbated, or treatment-unrelated., Results: The records of 44 patients who experienced early deaths on C89803 (21 patients) or N9741 (23 patients) were reviewed. Patients treated with irinotecan plus bolus 5-FU/leucovorin had a three-fold higher rate of treatment-induced or treatment-exacerbated death than patients treated on the other arm(s) of the respective studies. For C89803, these rates were 2.5% (16 of 635) for IFL versus 0.8% (five of 628) for bolus weekly 5-FU and leucovorin. For N9741, these rates were 3.5% (10 of 289) for IFL, 1.1% (three of 277) for oxaliplatin plus bolus and infusional 5-FU and leucovorin, and 1.1% (three of 275) for oxaliplatin plus irinotecan. Multiple gastrointestinal toxicities that often occurred together were characterized into a gastrointestinal syndrome. Sudden, unexpected thromboembolic events were characterized as a vascular syndrome. The majority of deaths in both studies were attributable to one or both of these syndromes., Conclusion: Close clinical monitoring, early recognition of toxicities and toxicity syndromes, aggressive therapeutic intervention, and withholding therapy in the presence of unresolved drug-related toxicities is recommended for patients receiving IFL or other intensive chemotherapy regimens.

Purpose: Lometrexol [(6R)-5,10-dideaza-5,6,7,8-tetrahydrofolate] is the prototype folate antimetabolite that targets the de novo purine synthesis pathway. Early phase I trials were confounded by cumulative myelosuppression that prevented repetitive administration. Subsequent preclinical and clinical studies suggested that coadministration of folic acid might favorably modulate lometrexol toxicity without eliminating potential antitumor activity. We set out to determine if concurrent folic acid would allow administration of lometrexol on a weekly schedule, and, if so, to identify an appropriate dose combination for phase II trials. Pharmacokinetic and metabolism studies were undertaken in an attempt to improve our understanding of lometrexol pharmacodynamics., Methods: Patients with advanced cancer received daily oral folic acid beginning 7 days before lometrexol and continuing for 7 days beyond the last lometrexol dose. Lometrexol was administered by short i.v. infusion weekly for 8 weeks. Scheduled lometrexol doses were omitted for toxicity of more than grade 2 present on the day of treatment, and dose-limiting toxicity was prospectively defined in terms of frequency of dose omission as well as the occurrence of severe toxic events. Plasma and whole blood total lometrexol contents (lometrexol plus lometrexol polyglutamates) were measured in samples taken just prior to each lometrexol dose., Results: A total of 18 patients were treated at five lometrexol dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was identified by frequent dose omission due to thrombocytopenia and mucositis. The recommended phase II dose combination is lometrexol 10.4 mg/m(2) per week i.v. with folic acid 3 mg/m(2) per day orally. One patient with melanoma experienced a partial response, and three patients, two with melanoma and one with renal cell carcinoma, experienced stable disease. Lometrexol was not detectable in any predose plasma sample tested. The total red blood cell content of lometrexol increased over several weeks and then appeared to plateau., Conclusions: Weekly administration of lometrexol is feasible and well-tolerated when coadministered with daily oral folic acid. The nature of the interaction between natural folates and lometrexol that renders this schedule feasible remains unclear. A definition of dose-limiting toxicity that incorporated attention to dose omissions allowed efficient identification of a recommended phase II dose that reflects the maximum feasible dose intensity for a weekly schedule. Lometrexol is a promising, anticancer agent.

Oral etoposide has activity in a wide variety of tumors and is well tolerated. Therefore, the efficacy of oral etoposide was assessed as a treatment of metastatic endometrial cancer. To be eligible for this group-wide Southwest Oncology Group trial, patients had to have histologically proven metastatic or recurrent endometrial carcinoma; no previous cytotoxic therapy; and adequate renal, hepatic, and hematologic function, and they had to have given informed consent. Therapy consisted of oral etoposide, 50 mg daily on days 1-21 on a 28-day schedule. Therapy was continued in the absence of toxicity or disease progression. Forty-four eligible women, with a median age of 68 years (range 38-84 years) were treated. Radiotherapy had been delivered to 33 and hormomal therapy to 21. The median duration of therapy was 69 days (range 7-510 days). The treatment was well tolerated. Only one patient had grade 4 neutropenia, and a second had grade 4 anemia. Three patients had grade 3 nausea. One complete and five partial responses (14%) were observed. An additional four patients had unconfirmed responses. Tumor regressions were noted in nodes, bone, and visceral organs. While oral etoposide has only a modest level of activity when used in chemonaive patients, the minimal toxicity of this drug makes it a candidate for use in combination chemotherapy., (Copyright 1999 Academic Press.)

Background: Continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (CI5-FU) has been utilized concurrently with radiotherapy to improve tumor control. In this pilot trial, cisplatin, CI5FU, and radiotherapy were utilized for the treatment of locoregional esophageal carcinoma. It was postulated that the combination would be well tolerated and associated with high response rate and survival duration., Methods: Thirty-two eligible patients with locoregional squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma of the esophagus received a regimen consisting of the following: radiotherapy, 50 Gray (Gy) (30 Gy anteroposterior/posteroanterior regional with 20 Gy AP/LPO/RPO boost) over 5 weeks, with CI5-FU 250 mg/m2/d for the duration of radiotherapy and cisplatin 25 mg/m2/day on Days 1-3 during Weeks 1 and 4 of the radiotherapy cycle. Upon completion of radiotherapy, two additional course, of cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 29 and CI5-FU 300 mg/m2/day on Days 1-21 and 29-50 were delivered. Following imaging and endoscopic reassessment, patients with no evidence of disease received more chemotherapy. Surgery was suggested only for patients with residual local disease., Results: Complete response was demonstrated in 44% of patients, clinically in 12 patients, and during surgery in 2 others. The median survival was 20 months, and the 1-year survival rate was 59%. Toxicity was severe, comprised of esophagitis, infection, and gastrointestinal complications. Dose delays and reductions occurred in the majority of patients. Four early deaths were noted., Conclusions: The regimen that was the focus of this trial has been active in the treatment of esophageal carcinoma. However, compared with existing regimens, its complexity and toxicity preclude its future use without modifications.

A phase II trial of the new anthrapyrazole piroxantrone was conducted by the Southwest Oncology Group in advanced ovarian carcinoma. The objective were to evaluate its response rate and toxicity in patients who had disease persistence, progression, or recurrence either during or after platinum-containing chemotherapy. A two-stage statistical design targeted accrual to 15 eligible patients if no responses were observed. The piroxantrone starting dose was 120 mg/m2, with the provision to escalate to 150 and 180 mg/m2. There were 16 eligible patients, all of whom had received either one (12 patients) or two (4 patients) prior platinum-containing regimens; one patient had received doxorubicin. Fourteen of the 16 patients were enrolled either at the time of disease persistence/progression during initial chemotherapy or with recurrence or progression within 6 months of the previous platinum-based remain. One to 5 cycles of piroxantrone were given. Dose escalation was feasible in 7 patients but was prevented in the other 9 by neutropenia. Maximum toxicity for all cycles was none or grade 1 in 2 patients; grade 2, 5; grade 3, 8; and grade 4, 1. All but one of the grade 3 or 4 events was from myelosuppression; there were no adverse cardiac events. No responses were observed. Thus, piroxantrone appears inactive in patients with persistent, progressive, or recurrent ovarian cancer who recently had received a platinum-based regimen.

Background: Chemoradiotherapy has demonstrated efficacy in esophageal cancer but rarely is curative. To improve local control and decrease metastases, a 7-month regimen was used with standard-dose radiotherapy (RT), cisplatin (DDP), and continuous infusion (CI) 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with locoregional squamous/adenocarcinoma of the esophagus., Methods: Initial treatment consisted of RT to the esophagus (4000-5000 cGy) for 5-6 weeks, CI 5-FU (300 mg/m2/day) concurrent with RT, and DDP (25 mg/m2/day x 3) for Days 1-3 and 21-23. Two monthly cycles of DDP (75 mg/m2 Day 1) and 5-FU (300 mg/m2 x 21 days) followed. Patients were restaged with endoscopy and computed tomography scan. Patients without evidence of residual disease received three more cycles of chemotherapy (CT); those with persistent tumor underwent esophagectomy or additional CT/RT, and those with disease progression were offered alternative CT., Results: From December 1987 to September 1991, 18 men and 8 women, including 2 with adenocarcinoma, were eligible for inclusion in the study. All were evaluable for toxicity and response. The median age was 61.5 years (range, 50-80 years), the median pretreatment weight loss was 9 lbs, and the median serum albumin level was 4.3 mg%. Therapy was toxic; 19 patients were hospitalized for treatment-related esophagitis, thrombosis, or infection. Grade III and IV leucopenia were seen in 12 patients and 1 patient, respectively. One patient had Grade IV thrombocytopenia. Of 26 patients, 17 (65%) had no tumor on restaging. Five patients had recurrences in the esophagus (1), liver (3), and lung (2). Three patients had second neoplasms. The median survival was 24 months., Conclusion: This treatment regimen provides high frequency of local tumor resolution, but with significant toxicity.

The use of mitomycin for metastatic colorectal cancer has been limited by mitomycin's myelosuppressive potential. The objective of this randomized study was to determine whether WR-2721 would decrease the hematologic toxicity of mitomycin in patients with colorectal cancer resistant to fluorouracil-based therapy. Ninety-seven patients with refractory colorectal cancer were randomized to receive either mitomycin 20 mg/m2 only or the same dose of mitomycin after pretreatment with WR-2721, 910 mg/m2. The principal toxicity in both groups was thrombocytopenia. The platelet nadirs were lower in patients receiving single-agent mitomycin (P = 0.026). Surprisingly, no clinical complete or partial responses were noted in either group, and survival was not different between the two groups. Thus, while WR-2721 decreased the thrombocytopenia associated with mitomycin therapy, mitomycin was ineffective in the treatment of refractory colorectal carcinoma.

Dose intensification has the potential to increase the response frequency of chemosensitive tumors to chemotherapy. G-CSF and GM-CSF offer the possibility of dose-intensifying chemotherapy without prohibitive myelosuppression. A phase I study was undertaken to identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of carboplatin that could be administered with a fixed dose of doxorubicin, 60 mg/m2, administered every 28 days. Further escalation of the carboplatin dose was then attempted, with the concomitant addition of GM-CSF 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-21. We had 21 patients, 13 with prior therapy, who were eligible. In all, 60 courses of therapy were delivered, all with doxorubicin and with carboplatin doses of 250 mg/m2, 325 mg/m2 and 400 mg/m2. At carboplatin 400 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 60 mg/m2, thrombocytopenia was dose limiting. The addition of GM-CSF did not allow further escalation. Of the 6 patients treated with carboplatin 400 mg/m2, doxorubicin 60 mg/m2, and GM-CSF, grade 4 granulocytopenia and thrombocytopenia were seen in 4 and 5 patients, respectively. The severity of thrombocytopenia was related to the calculated carboplatin AUC and also to baseline platelet count and prior therapy. In addition, the interaction of GM-CSF and chemotherapy, especially carboplatin-based, may be more complex than originally anticipated.

Sixteen eligible patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, previously untreated, received merbarone 1000 mg/m2/d for five consecutive days every 21 days. No complete or partial response to treatment was obtained. Seven patients had grade 4 granulocytopenia. One patient died with renal failure. Merbarone in this dose and schedule was ineffective in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Difluorodeoxycytidine (dFdC) demonstrated broad spectrum activity in preclinical models. A phase 1 study utilizing twice weekly injections was conducted in 50 eligible and evaluable patients. Twenty-nine patients received drug by 30 minute infusion at doses of 5-90 mg/m2 and 22, by 5 minute bolus at 30-150 mg/m2. The primary dose limiting toxicities were marrow suppression and flu-like symptomatology. Thrombocytopenia was dose limiting at 75 mg/m2 on the infusion schedule and 150 mg/m2 on the 5 minute schedule. Flu-like symptoms with fever, rigors and malaise occurred the day of injection in many patients. One patient with renal cell carcinoma attained a partial response. Evaluation of the drug's efficacy and schedule dependency continue.

Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) developed in two patients with solid tumors without acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS). In patients with neoplastic solid tumors, as in those with hematologic malignancies, Pneumocystis is a possible cause of pneumonia. Management protocols evaluating pulmonary infiltrates in this patient population must include tests for PCP.

Crisnatol mesylate is a rationally designed cytotoxic arylmethylamino-propanediol with broad spectrum cytotoxic activity. A phase I study with an unconventional escalation scheme was developed using a constant drug infusion rate (mg/m2/hr) and prolonging the infusion duration from 6 to 96 hours. Sixty-five patients received crisnatol at doses from 18 mg/m2 in 6 hrs to 3400 mg/m2 in 72 hours. The dose-limiting toxicity in two of five patients at 2700 mg/m2 and two of three patients at 3400 mg/m2 was neurologic and consisted of a syndrome of confusion, agitation, and disorientation. Phlebitis mandated the use of a central line. The mean terminal phase half-life (T1/2 beta) was 3.3 hours with a total body clearance (CL) of 22.8 L/hr/m2 and a volume of distribution (Vdss) of 53 L/m2. The median steady-state peak plasma concentration (Css) at 2700 mg/m2/72 hours was 2.7 micrograms/ml and at 3400 mg/m2/72 hours was 3.8 micrograms/ml. No responses were seen. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) on this schedule is 2700 mg/m2/72 hours in patients with no liver disease and good performance status.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) was delivered in a dose-intensive schedule to 23 patients with metastatic or unresectable colorectal carcinoma. The schedule consisted of bolus single-dose 5-FU therapy 400 to 500 mg followed by 4-day infusion of 5-FU, 600 to 800 mg/m2/day, followed by a 17-day to 24-day infusion of 200 to 250 mg/m2/day. Partial remissions were seen in 22% of all eligible patients. Significant toxicity, including mucositis, diarrhea, and hand-foot syndrome, necessitated dose reductions in most patients. The authors conclude that 5-FU given in this moderately intensive schedule is associated with a moderate level of response, as easily achieved with more conventional schedules or with 5-FU-leucovorin combinations. Tumor responsiveness to dose intensive 5-FU regimens may be limited.

Thirty-two patients with refractory relapsed small cell carcinoma of the lung (SCCL) were treated with a combination of CCNU (lomustine), vincristine, methotrexate, and procarbazine (COMP); 29 were evaluable for response. Nine patients (31%) had responses: five complete responses (CR) and four partial responses. Patients with CR had a median survival of 11 months (range, 51/2-141/2) from the start of COMP. Patients with less than CR had a median survival of approximately 3 months (range, less than 1-7). The comparison of CR versus less than CR is significant (P = 0.003). Patients achieving CR usually had limited disease and four of the five who achieved CR survived greater than 6 months. The regimen was well-tolerated, but myelosuppression was seen in all patients. COMP appears to be a useful combination in patients with relapsed SCCL. Aggressive retreatment should be considered in relapsed patients with this disease since some may achieve a second CR, with the associated potential survival benefit.